Bonds v. Nesbitt
322 Ga. App. 852
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Deborah Bonds sued Dr. Reginald Nesbitt for malpractice after her husband, Billy Bonds, died following treatment in the hospital emergency department; trial court granted partial summary judgment for Dr. Nesbitt based on OCGA § 51-1-29.5.
- On arrival Mr. Bonds had acute symptoms (vomiting, nausea, dizziness, abdominal pain) and was triaged with acuity level 2; Dr. Nesbitt examined him, ordered IV fluids, narcotic analgesics, labs, EKG, blood cultures, and an abdominal CT.
- Dr. Nesbitt continued treating Mr. Bonds in the ED through the night, signed admission paperwork noting acute renal failure/hypertension with improvement by 11:30 p.m., and arranged transfer to a regular room; another physician took over around 12:44 a.m.
- After transfer Mr. Bonds became agitated, later went into respiratory/cardiac arrest and died; plaintiff alleges failure to provide necessary emergency treatment caused death.
- OCGA § 51-1-29.5 requires clear and convincing proof of gross negligence for claims arising out of provision of emergency medical care, but excludes care after the patient is "stabilized and capable of receiving medical treatment as a nonemergency patient."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 51-1-29.5 applies | Bonds: claim arises from failure to provide appropriate emergency care, so statute doesn't apply and ordinary negligence standard governs | Nesbitt: at least some treatment occurred as emergency care, so statute applies (requiring gross negligence) | Court: statute applies to the undisputed emergency-care portions of treatment |
| Stabilization exception — whether patient stabilized so statute no longer applies | Bonds: question for jury; Nesbitt never proved stabilization; ordinary negligence should apply | Nesbitt: he determined patient had stabilized and arranged transfer, invoking the exception | Held: whether Mr. Bonds stabilized is a jury question; trial court erred granting summary judgment on exception |
| Admissibility of Dr. Anne Neff's causation opinion | Bonds: Neff unreliable re: pulmonary embolism diagnosis and lacks relevant experience | Nesbitt: Neff's background, consultations, and reasoning support admissibility | Held: trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting Neff's causation testimony |
| Admissibility of Dr. Robert Balk on standard of care | Bonds: Balk qualified to opine on standard and causation | Nesbitt: Balk lacks sufficient ER practice to opine on ED standard of care | Held: court properly limited Balk to causation (sepsis) and excluded ER standard-of-care testimony |
| Reopening discovery for second deposition of plaintiff's expert | Bonds: reopening was prejudicial | Nesbitt: needed to depose expert about new affidavit filed after initial discovery | Held: trial court acted within broad discretion in reopening discovery for limited deposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Restina v. Crawford, 205 Ga. App. 887 (statutory interpretation from the statute as a whole)
- Perry v. Gilotra-Mallik, 314 Ga. App. 764 (expert admissibility discretion)
- Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga. v. Casey, 300 Ga. App. 850 (expert admissibility principles)
- Mason v. Home Depot U.S.A., 283 Ga. 271 (trial court’s role in qualifying experts)
- Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804 (expert must have experience relevant to alleged acts/omissions)
- Dawson v. Leder, 294 Ga. App. 717 (expert must be familiar with and have specific experience in relevant standard of care)
- Aguilar v. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, 320 Ga. App. 663 (limits on expert testimony where expert lacks requisite emergency-medicine experience)
- Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills, 266 Ga. 472 (trial court’s wide discretion to manage discovery)